Telephoto lenses for sports & focusing

<p>I purchased my first DSLR about 6 months ago (400D/XTi w/17-85 IS USM) as an

enthusiast. So far I have been extremely happy with my results.</p>

<p>However, winter sport has started up (I'm in Australia) and I'm going to need

a telephoto to get the shots that I really want from the soccer field.

Photographing slower/lower grades have produced some good results, but the

higher grades have been very disappointing. Mainly due to the auto-focusing

being too slow. </p>

 

<p>At the moment I have in mind...

<l>Canon 70-300 IS USM f4-5.6 and </l>

<l>Canon 70-200 IS USM f2.8L. </l>

I would be willing to shell out the cash for the "L" provided that produces the

results I want.</p>

 

<p>Can any of the knowledgable people out there tell me whether the autofocusing

is built into the lens or the camera?</p>

<p>Is there a better/faster autofocus (either software or hardware) built into

the "L" over the standard lens?</p>

<p>Is the only way to get consistent results to manually focus?</p>

 

<p>Any knowledge and relayed experience would be greatly appreciated.</p>

 

<p>PS. I set the autofocus to use just one location of the AF points hoping that

this will help.</p>

Autofocusing depends on both the body and the lens. Some lenses have faster and better autofocusing and for the most part the newer and higher end your camera the faster the autofocusing. The 70-200 f2.8 is the best lens in your list. It is a little shorter than the 70-300, but is excellent optically and is known for having fast AF. If you want to get really serious you can consider upgrading your camera body at some point, the 40D has excellent AF, and would be a dream to use with the 70-200 for sports.

I second Brian. If you have the cash, you really can't beat the 40D/70-200L f2.8 combo. I have the 70-200L f4 non-IS model with my 40D, and it is, bar none, the most incredible lens I own... optically it is superb beyond compare, and it autofocuses very fast.

 

For sports, I would think the 2.8 and IS would be beneficial though.

I've got the 70-200/2.8 IS, it's just the lens for rapid and accurate focus. I use it in a 20D. Before the 2.8 IS, I used the 70-200/f4, which in every other respect was excellent, but just couldn't manage the rapid focus for fast sports (although I've seen it used professionally for sports photography on a 40D).

 

So, I would think the 40D+70-200/2.8 IS would be excellent.

 

My 2p

 

P

"winter sport has started up (I'm in Australia)"

 

You mean the temperature has finally dropped below 25 dec C :)

 

Colin (NZ)

Auto focussing is a function of both camera and lens. The conection between the two is purely electrical with the motor in the lens. There are two types of USM, a true ring motor and a micro motor. Non USM lenses have a standard electric motor. The focussing speed that a given lens is capable of depends on the weight of glass the motor has to move and the distance it has to move it through as well a the type of motor employed. The 70-200 has the true USM motor and auto focus is essentially instantaneous (in Australian, bloody quick). The 70-300 and your 17-85 IS USM I'm not sure, but if they have the micro motor will be only qiuck (compared to nonUSMs) For soccer I'd set your AF to the centre point and then experiment with one shot and servo AF and also with setting focus actuation to the * button (custom fn 4). In the old days of manual focus people became adept at using MF but I think modern AF is faster and more accurate once you have a method that suits and you have achieved some experience with it. I think that focussing on a fast moveing game is difficult, and all photographers need to go through a learning curve and aquire some skills to do it well. As for a lens the 70-200 2.8 IS is the ants pants but it is costly and heavy and attention getting, the f4 less so but the equal in IQ and focussing speed and perfectly adequate for day time games. The 70-300 IS is less than half the cost of the 2.8, has longer reach, a touch slower focussing, and is less conspicuous. What I would buy depends on the budget, all three would be good, and produce good quality prints up to A4. The fact that you purchased a 400D instead of a 40D tends to indicate you are value conscious so the 70-300 might be best, But if you were to buy either of the L lenses you would not regret it, every time you touch them you can feel the quality. Finally, don't buy a non IS lens, IS is invaluable.

Colin, we've just had the coldest Aprit in 58 years, there is some serious talk down here about global freezing.

I have the 70-200 IS USM f2.8L and shoot soccer in Australia as well as Aussie Rules.

The lens is very fast and the focus is awesome on my 30D. The lens is almost

bulletproof and if you can afford the high price go for it. Centre focus is the way to go.

You mean the temperature has finally dropped below 25 dec C :)

 

Nah,matbe down south, 27 in Q so still sweatin on the morning beach run :)

<p>As others have said, the AF sensors are in the camera, but the motor is in the lens. So all else being equal, a lens with a quicker AF motor (which the 70-200 has relative to the 70-300) will focus more quickly on the same body. There are other factors which affect focusing speed, but the short version of the story is that the 70-200 will focus much more quickly than the 70-300 in most situations, and it's hard to imagine a situation in which the 70-300 will win a focus-speed battle with the 70-200.</p>

 

<p>The 70-200 is also faster (as in aperture), which in the same conditions lets you use a faster shutter speed to freeze motion.</p>

 

<p>Optically, the 70-300 is rather good for a consumer-grade telephoto zoom. But the 70-200 is a pro lens, with excellent optics.</p>

Joshua:

 

I suggest the 70 to 200F2.8L.

 

I suggest you get the IS version if you believe you will use this lens for other purposes, other than sports coverage.

 

IMO, NF sums it up here:

 

`For soccer I'd set your AF to the centre point and then experiment with one shot and servo AF and also with setting focus actuation to the * button (custom fn 4). [. . . ] focussing on a fast moving game is difficult, and all photographers need to go through a learning curve and acquire some skills to do it well.`

 

Personally: I use AF to centre spot; one shot; and the AF set to `*`. Even with soccer (and field hockey), I often use a pre focus point.

 

The comment about the learning curve (and practice) cannot be stressed enough: knowing the game enough to be able to predict play is important, too.

 

WW

 

 

Chris, it is difficult for New Zealander`s to comprehend the size we have here. :)

 

WW

PS:

 

Forgot to mention, buy a good monopod, you should get a suitable manfrotto, for example, for less than $100

 

WW

I agree with almost all of the advice above. I regularly use a 70-200 f2.8 non IS lens, and it is my main workhorse, sometimes with a 1.4X extender, usually with a monopod. I have longer lenses, including the 300 2.8 IS. Although the 300 is a touch sharper, it is not as versatile as the 70-200 zoom. Usually the 70-200 is long enough with an APS size sensor. A longer lens gives you better reach but you lose the close action, and there is more trouble with other players obstructing in your foreground. Regarding the comment about IS, it is of doubtful value for sports, because you need a fast shutter speed to freeze action anyway. BUT I would still want it for other situations, such as low light portraits. The 2.8 is worth it, in my opinion, definitely worth saving for. I focus with the * button, sometimes prefocus, and mostly use the AI servo AF mode. I almost always use manual exposure mode.

 

Dave

Thanks for all of the responses so far, you are pointing me in the right direction. As for the "Aussie winter sport", its purely based on the dates (April to September), our temperature doesn't change down here.

 

When lens manufacturers state they have improved a lenses algorithms, say in a mk II version, are they yanking my chain or is there firmware built into the lenses?

 

Can someone who has extensively used both the f2.8 and f4 tell me whether the difference in pictures is worth carrying the extra weight and the extra cost?

 

With regards to my 400D. I started out with the "cheapest" body and a decent piece of glass and after sticking with it (photography) I plan on upgrading my body in the foreseeable future.

Another thought is the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens. It is AF but not IS. I shoot it on a 40D and get great results. IF cost is a factor and as you just strated out...it is. And yes the difference in 2.8 and f/4 is noticiable.

If money is tight and you only shooting outdoors, start with 70-200mm f4 non IS. You can get used ones for around $450. Next step up would be 70-200mm f2.8 non IS.

 

For soccer 200mm is quite less unless you shootinga ction which is very close. f2.8 lens helps when light is low. Also helps in getting more blurring of the back ground. If light is good an doutdoors only, you can use f4 lens, no problems.

> Can someone who has extensively used both the f2.8 and f4 tell me whether the difference in pictures is worth carrying the extra weight and the extra cost?<

 

Well I have not used the F4 version as I did not consider buying it: but I have had my Canon 70 to 200 F2.8 for about three years now and it has racked up about 90,000 frames and conservatively about 40% are at: F3.5; F3.2; or F2.8. So I wouldn`t have any of those shots with the F4.

 

Prior to swapping over to Canon, I previously use F2 / F1.8 (primes) and an F2.8 short telephoto zoom for field sport.

 

Lens speed is the defining parameter when you are at the exposure limits: the point is F2.8 vs.F4 when you are at the edge gives you the capacity to shoot at 1/800 rather than 1/400: and for AFL that is the difference between possible and impossible.

 

Whether it is worth it or not is a personal question: but when considering this question it is not a question of: `is the difference in pictures is worth carrying the extra weight and the extra cost?`:

 

Rather you need to recognize that there will be some pictures possible with the F2.8 that are impossible with the F4, especially in the fourth quarter at speed on a wet Saturday.

 

 

WW